Jump to content


Photo

V8 and V6 together in 2014?


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1 MadYarpen

MadYarpen
  • Member

  • 3,876 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 10 August 2012 - 14:23

http://translate.goo...-le-V8-en-i3350

What do you think? I don't know if it would be good - probably not, but certainly would be interesting in the beggining. To see how they compare I mean. But I think that if it happens, teams using cosworth V8 in that time, which means backmarkers, will be even worse with new engines - having lost first year of developement with this unit.
Different story is free choice of an engine kind - but I guess renault, merc and ferrari will want to see V6 raced after so much money thrown on them.

Edited by MadYarpen, 10 August 2012 - 14:24.


Advertisement

#2 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 10 August 2012 - 14:37

This is a strange article if you look at the Renault angle of it.

There's a quote in there from Whitmarsh saying Renault would be ready to supply up to 7 teams if needed. Ferrari and Mercedes haven't decided yet on how many teams they could supply.

I really doubt they will let anyone run Cosworth V8s, but if it happens it will probably be the FIA throwing a spanner in the works, again.

You gotta wonder how teams like HRT and Marussia could cope with any increase in cost of their engine supply though, and this is why the question is raised.

#3 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 9,757 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 10 August 2012 - 14:38

They did the same in 2006, with Toro Rosso running restricted Cossie V10s.

#4 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 10 August 2012 - 14:47

They did the same in 2006, with Toro Rosso running restricted Cossie V10s.


Yep, but this time it would be weird since a single manufacturer is apparently ready to supply half the grid.

I don't really care.. would be funny if HRT and Marussia ended with an advantage because Ferrari and Mercedes would not want to supply more teams.

Add this to the pile of stuff that needs to be figured out before everyone signs the new Concorde.

#5 chrisblades85

chrisblades85
  • Member

  • 2,606 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 10 August 2012 - 14:56

Got be some old V10's laying around somewhere. Use them. And if someone could a V12, that would be great too.

#6 rossbrawn

rossbrawn
  • Member

  • 310 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 10 August 2012 - 15:00

I miss the V10's :|.

#7 george1981

george1981
  • Member

  • 722 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 10 August 2012 - 15:25

I miss the V10's :|.


I agree, I think they should have rev limited the V10s rather than go to V8s. The engine manufacturers spent millions developing V8s and a year later the rev limits were introduced anyway.

Would anyone care to speculate how the turbo V6s would perform in comparison to the current V8s?

#8 Red17

Red17
  • Member

  • 3,349 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 10 August 2012 - 15:27

I that the article actually implies that Renault may become the new Cosworth. The problem is that 2 teams don't seem to have enough money to switch those engines, hence Martin's words pointing towards a smilar solution to when RBR bought Minardi.

#9 morrino

morrino
  • Member

  • 141 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 10 August 2012 - 15:36

It would be nice to watch V6T vs V8!

#10 MadYarpen

MadYarpen
  • Member

  • 3,876 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 10 August 2012 - 15:44

It would be nice to watch V6T vs V8!


But would it really be V6T vs V8, not V6Ts vs V6Ts and 4 V8s against each other? Assuming only backmarkers would run V8s?

#11 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 4,439 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 10 August 2012 - 16:13

What a major cock up.

This whole gig was conceived during the "boom times" to bring the likes of VW et al into the F1 arena.... and it hasn't worked...... yet the nupties at the FIA continued to push it.

The whole concept is based around "energy regeneration", "efficiency" and "fuel flow restrictions"...... well why not restrict the fuel flow on the the V8's and turn the bloody KERS up? It's not fricking rocket science.

And before any of the "It's 20 year old technology" brigade rock up....... apart from some clever injection systems and turbine technology - all engines are "old tech". The award wining 1.0 Ford EcoBoost has a cast iron block FFS.

The current V8's are amazingly efficient. Seriously....... look it up. Keep the V8's, restrict the fuel flow (just like the V6's)........ and open up the energy regeneration avenues through an FIA regulated RRA...... It saves the vast majority of all the bullshit and money. And at the end of the day - if the like's of VW wanted a piece of the pie..... then they'd already be here.



#12 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 10 August 2012 - 16:23

I don't mind a new engine, but you raise several good points maverick69.

I'm not sure when this began to happen, but right now we're at a point where everything surrounding the engines is mostly PR bullshit.

#13 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 10 August 2012 - 20:57

The V8s are trash. I can't wait for 2014.

If Marussia and HRT can't afford the turbo engines then maybe they shouldn't be in F1 in the first place. It's not like they help F1 in any shape or form.

#14 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,715 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 10 August 2012 - 22:08

guess u didnt see moto gp the last few years, 17 bikes/cars is a a emputy sad feeling on a big track.



#15 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 9,757 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 10 August 2012 - 22:17

The V8s are trash. I can't wait for 2014.

If Marussia and HRT can't afford the turbo engines then maybe they shouldn't be in F1 in the first place. It's not like they help F1 in any shape or form.


Grid size is underestimated. Look at the MotoGP grid, and how many of those are non-CRT.

#16 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,366 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 10 August 2012 - 23:13

Look at the MotoGP grid

Now that's a sorry sight.

#17 dav115

dav115
  • Member

  • 716 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 10 August 2012 - 23:36

Time has shown that when it comes to engines, it's a classic case of win on Sunday sell on Monday. F1 engine development is more restricted than it has ever been, yet where are the hoards of back street suppliers like we were promised when the engine freeze came into place? Nowhere. Instead we've lost the likes of BMW and Honda because they aren't allowed to showcase their engine technology. Even back when Ferrari/Schumi were dominating, everyone knew the BMW motor was the class of the grid and it led them to pump millions more in R&D so that they could say look at our M5, it uses the same V10 technology found in our F1 engines. The whole concept of mandating high cost engines (as is the case now, and in 2014) and expecting to attract investment is fundamentally flawed (especially while the teams are forced to pump HUNDREDS of millions into useless aero development). If you want to standardise engines put some ****ing OTC V8s in and don't bother wasting millions per year on R&D on these fancy V6/TERS systems. Oh, and I bet my bottom dollar they'll use hardly any more fuel than these new "efficient" engines coming in in 2014.

Mark my words, we're looking at grim times ahead with a max of 3 (Ferrari,Merc,Renault) engine suppliers in 2014.

Edited by dav115, 11 August 2012 - 00:04.


#18 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 10 August 2012 - 23:57

There was very little difference between 2009 and 2010. They never show those teams except when they are getting lapped. I'm talking about Marussia and HRT only because Caterham have shown that they deserve to be there. Keeping crap rules for those two useless teams would be a huge mistake.

Grid size is underestimated. Look at the MotoGP grid, and how many of those are non-CRT.


CRT's get about a minute of TV time during the race.

A big grid is nice but only if the cars/bikes are competitive.

#19 PAGATRON

PAGATRON
  • Member

  • 315 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 11 August 2012 - 12:34

They could switch to full electric. <runs for cover>

Advertisement

#20 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,715 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 11 August 2012 - 15:07

would be feasible with wireless charging stuff under the circuit, thats basicaly what electric needs as batteries cant be as good as fuel

#21 mtknot

mtknot
  • Member

  • 646 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 11 August 2012 - 15:20

If the HP/torque figures of the V6T are the same as the V8, then why not. However if the V6T turn out to run at 750bhp + (Should be more than possible...) then... well...

#22 Lennat

Lennat
  • Member

  • 484 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 11 August 2012 - 15:49

If the HP/torque figures of the V6T are the same as the V8, then why not. However if the V6T turn out to run at 750bhp + (Should be more than possible...) then... well...


Isn't the plan for the V6 engines to be underpowered? Like 600 bhp and not enough KERS to make up for it?

#23 morrino

morrino
  • Member

  • 141 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 12 August 2012 - 00:48

V6/V8 equivalency formula for 2014 would be 'unattractive' for F1 -Martin Whitmarsh

He says that it woule create a two-tier championship. But, isn't that what he have now anyway?

Im sure if you make a poll, the fans will want V6T vs V8s.

Edited by morrino, 12 August 2012 - 00:50.


#24 sergeym

sergeym
  • Member

  • 530 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 12 August 2012 - 08:05

V6/V8 equivalency formula for 2014 would be 'unattractive' for F1 -Martin Whitmarsh

He says that it woule create a two-tier championship. But, isn't that what he have now anyway?

Im sure if you make a poll, the fans will want V6T vs V8s.


It's more like 3 tier - there are top teams, who can consistently secure top 4-5 positions, there are midfield teams who can regularly score point, and there are backmarkers.

#25 mtknot

mtknot
  • Member

  • 646 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 12 August 2012 - 08:13

Isn't the plan for the V6 engines to be underpowered? Like 600 bhp and not enough KERS to make up for it?


I hope not. That'd make the cars far too neutral/easy to handle, unless of course they're going to compensate with variable aero :drunk:

#26 MadYarpen

MadYarpen
  • Member

  • 3,876 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 12 August 2012 - 13:13

I hope not. That'd make the cars far too neutral/easy to handle, unless of course they're going to compensate with variable aero :drunk:


If I'm not mistaken plans are that engine + KERS will give similar power to V8, but KERS won't be used all the time, so I think these engines may really suck. But we will see.

#27 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 12 August 2012 - 14:04

The V6s do not make sense all the way around:

Cheaper? Obviously not.
Better performance? Whitmarsh is quoted as saying that the V8s would have to be compromised so that it would be fair.

BETTER ENTERTAINMENT? NO.

A weaker, quieter and more expensive and hard to produce engine???? WTF???


They should go back to V10's - THAT is Formula One, not something akin to what is in a street car, or go all electric and be done with it.







#28 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 12 August 2012 - 14:05

These people live in their own rarified atmosphere and have no clue, or care, that their own existence is owed to the nature of ENTERTAINING F1's fanbase.

I don't want weaker, quieter engines.



#29 rossbrawn

rossbrawn
  • Member

  • 310 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 12 August 2012 - 14:14

They should go back to V10's - THAT is Formula One, not something akin to what is in a street car, or go all electric and be done with it.


The sooner, the better :evil: :cool: .

#30 Wingcommander

Wingcommander
  • Member

  • 684 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 12 August 2012 - 15:05

If Marussia and HRT can't afford the turbo engines then maybe they shouldn't be in F1 in the first place. It's not like they help F1 in any shape or form.


So far Sauber have been the most vocal team about turbo engines' costs. And if they can't afford it, i wonder how the rest of the midfield will manage? So we're not just talking about a couple of crap backmarker teams, we're talking about half the grid.

Edited by Wingcommander, 12 August 2012 - 15:06.


#31 GX390

GX390
  • Member

  • 749 posts
  • Joined: August 11

Posted 12 August 2012 - 16:05

How about no engine regs apart from fuel flow limits depending on capacity and number of cylinders?

#32 BMW4life

BMW4life
  • Member

  • 740 posts
  • Joined: August 03

Posted 12 August 2012 - 17:57

Time has shown that when it comes to engines, it's a classic case of win on Sunday sell on Monday. F1 engine development is more restricted than it has ever been, yet where are the hoards of back street suppliers like we were promised when the engine freeze came into place? Nowhere. Instead we've lost the likes of BMW and Honda because they aren't allowed to showcase their engine technology. Even back when Ferrari/Schumi were dominating, everyone knew the BMW motor was the class of the grid and it led them to pump millions more in R&D so that they could say look at our M5, it uses the same V10 technology found in our F1 engines. The whole concept of mandating high cost engines (as is the case now, and in 2014) and expecting to attract investment is fundamentally flawed (especially while the teams are forced to pump HUNDREDS of millions into useless aero development). If you want to standardise engines put some ****ing OTC V8s in and don't bother wasting millions per year on R&D on these fancy V6/TERS systems. Oh, and I bet my bottom dollar they'll use hardly any more fuel than these new "efficient" engines coming in in 2014.

Mark my words, we're looking at grim times ahead with a max of 3 (Ferrari,Merc,Renault) engine suppliers in 2014.


You will notice that more and more cars are being turbocharged, with 4 cylinder turbocharged BMW's and Audis becoming the rage. It's where the entire industry is heading, and that's one of the reasons formula 1 is aligning themselves with that technology. That's why NASCAR went to fuel injection. There is a strong need these days to appear environmentally responsible while burning tonnes of fuel going around in circles, regardless of what the facts may be.

BMW's new M5 is turbocharged, the same technology to be found in the new engine formula. Not sure what you're on about. BMW said, just 10 years ago, that they would never turbocharge an M car. :wave: A virtual slap in the face of Audi and Mercedez who were supercharging and turbocharging their M-car copies. Things change, bro. :lol:

One thing we can be happy about is that Max egomaniac is gone. They won't get it right all the time, but at least there will be consensus on the way forward, and the FIA will accept when they go down the wrong route. We've had to suffer with Max's bad decisions; continually raising the front wings, grooved tires, v8's and then rev-limts one year later, etc. They've been doing a great job of fixing those issues, and some may not like DRS, but if you're 1 second a lap faster, you can actually pass someone. I love what they're doing. :kiss:

#33 Obi Offiah

Obi Offiah
  • Member

  • 8,399 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 12 August 2012 - 18:28

Isn't the plan for the V6 engines to be underpowered? Like 600 bhp and not enough KERS to make up for it?


If I'm not mistaken plans are that engine + KERS will give similar power to V8, but KERS won't be used all the time, so I think these engines may really suck. But we will see.


This is the only thing about the 2014 engine regulations I don't like. The V6Ts in my opinion should produce 750 to 800hp and then have additional hp from the energy recovery systems on top.

#34 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,414 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 13 August 2012 - 13:18

Would anyone care to speculate how the turbo V6s would perform in comparison to the current V8s?

Embarrassed!

The V6s will be restricted to 550 hp as there is a fuel flow limit.

Adding the separate 200 hp KERS will make the total 750 hp. KERS is expensive and works supplier won't include it (i.e., increase the loss per supply) for the budget-spec ~$5m engine lease price that is universal in F1. Totally absurd situation that they should have forecast. It is universal for open wheel engine suppliers to be forced to supply teams at a loss in modern racing (see Indycar), lessor teams will no longer accept having inferior unreliable motors such as the Asiatechs or Subaru boxers (or most likely the F1 "pure" engine) that they tolerated in the past... look at how quick they all dumped Lotus in Indycar. Having some variety with V8s down the pack (or middle...) will be a good thing though, winding the clock back to 1987 sounds!

They could just turn up the boost to get the full 750 hp from internal combustion, get rid of KERS (they do know you can still buy a brand new Lamborghini 6200cc V12 Aventador that does not have any bleeding Hydrid technology or a similarly inefficient Chevrolet Corvette V8... don't they!? :well: ) and save everybody millions of dollars a year, but oh no somehow that is all too hard. :rolleyes:

#35 MadYarpen

MadYarpen
  • Member

  • 3,876 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 13 August 2012 - 13:22

This is the only thing about the 2014 engine regulations I don't like. The V6Ts in my opinion should produce 750 to 800hp and then have additional hp from the energy recovery systems on top.

Yeah, will we see Monza's parabolica being taken flat out? These cars are already underpowered. More power, or less aero please...

#36 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,414 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 13 August 2012 - 13:29

They should go back to V10's - THAT is Formula One, not something akin to what is in a street car, or go all electric and be done with it.

Bleeding Renault, sure the V10 sound is famous but I wager that V12 is better.  ;)

The problem is not the turbocharged engine, that's a reasonable marketing move. Fact is that a V12 is irrelevant to the average Mercedes or Renault buyer really, and you would struggle to use "EfficientDynamics" or a similar slogan credibly whilst having F1 V12 signage in the same dealership! A mandatory V12 would only make sense to market elite marques.

But the bleeding KERS is a stupid idea.

Just say 12500 rpm, heaps of boost, easy 800 hp, maximum $4m engine lease, must be capable and willing to supply all teams that request use of your engine unless compelling commercial reasons (e.g., no Ferrari powered Mercedes-Benz) apply. If that brings in humble engines designed by 15 engineers at a Judd style facility with a few modest computers instead of ones designed by 200 engineers and an enormous supercomputer --- that is NOT a bad thing!

#37 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,414 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 13 August 2012 - 13:35

There was very little difference between 2009 and 2010. They never show those teams except when they are getting lapped. I'm talking about Marussia and HRT only because Caterham have shown that they deserve to be there. Keeping crap rules for those two useless teams would be a huge mistake.

:down:

Even with crappy drivers, Hispania have improved by 1.5 seconds per season.

That is A LOT!

Put it this way Ferrari have spent $300 m per season for 15 seasons on their chassis ... that's an accumulated development of billions of dollars.. all the best technology and procedures for designing and building every aspect of the car ! How do really expect a modest operation to beat that? If not for the engine rules, even Red Bull would have no chance if they were still paying Ferrari for detuned engines (what a coincidence that Vettel is struggling as Alonso builds his title chase ;) ) like they did in 2006!

#38 Red17

Red17
  • Member

  • 3,349 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 13 August 2012 - 14:17

Mark my words, we're looking at grim times ahead with a max of 3 (Ferrari,Merc,Renault) engine suppliers in 2014.

I suspect no one of importance cares about Cosworth anymore. Everyone who could (Williams and Caterham) has dumped these units.
The issue is keeping Mercedes and Renault onboard or we could have a Ferrari only powered championship. I also believe HRT will find some way to make that Renault rumour true, technically they just need one (big) thing.

I don't want weaker, quieter engines.

Bernie has got that one covered I think. He has been vocal on the sound bit before and I am sure he will enforce some screaming. GP3 is already moving towards less silent engines because the old ones... well, it's telling when the Sky coverage kept mentioning the engines not sounding fast in all races.

But in due honesty I don't think we will see V8 alongside V6 Martin probably just threw that as one odd possibility.

Edited by Red17, 13 August 2012 - 14:17.


#39 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,048 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 13 August 2012 - 15:08

Allright so lets say we get V8s and V6T at the same time. How would one go about limiting the power?

Just give them a new RPM cap. and be done with it? Most likely.

Or give them the same fuel flow limit? (waaay cooler)

Regardless of choice the Renault V8 would be the prefered choice.

Advertisement

#40 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,715 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 13 August 2012 - 16:03

fuel flow or air restrictor
the v8's are very peaky, so a further rev restriction might really cripple them too much

#41 TifosiUSA

TifosiUSA
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 13 August 2012 - 16:19

What a major cock up.

This whole gig was conceived during the "boom times" to bring the likes of VW et al into the F1 arena.... and it hasn't worked...... yet the nupties at the FIA continued to push it.

The whole concept is based around "energy regeneration", "efficiency" and "fuel flow restrictions"...... well why not restrict the fuel flow on the the V8's and turn the bloody KERS up? It's not fricking rocket science.

And before any of the "It's 20 year old technology" brigade rock up....... apart from some clever injection systems and turbine technology - all engines are "old tech". The award wining 1.0 Ford EcoBoost has a cast iron block FFS.

The current V8's are amazingly efficient. Seriously....... look it up. Keep the V8's, restrict the fuel flow (just like the V6's)........ and open up the energy regeneration avenues through an FIA regulated RRA...... It saves the vast majority of all the bullshit and money. And at the end of the day - if the like's of VW wanted a piece of the pie..... then they'd already be here.


Spot on. nice post.

#42 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,048 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 13 August 2012 - 17:18

fuel flow or air restrictor
the v8's are very peaky, so a further rev restriction might really cripple them too much


Its all about how much. I would love to see both air restricor and/or fuel flow

Edited by MatsNorway, 13 August 2012 - 17:19.


#43 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 13 August 2012 - 19:47

Big if, but if it happens it's only be because of the two Cosworth teams, so the engine being crippled too much will pretty much be the order of the day.

There wouldn't be any vast undertaking to ensure parity between the Cossy V8s and the V6ts, it would just be about keeping the teams in business while making sure not to cast any shadow on the new engines.

They didn't have any money to pursue off-throttle blowing last year, and that was with Williams as a customer, so don't expect anything too fancy.

#44 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,414 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 14 August 2012 - 12:20

Bernie has got that one covered I think. He has been vocal on the sound bit before and I am sure he will enforce some screaming. GP3 is already moving towards less silent engines because the old ones... well, it's telling when the Sky coverage kept mentioning the engines not sounding fast in all races.

It really doesn't sound that bad. It certainly sounds angrier than the modern Indycar sound IMHO

Although the latest Indy engines have a similar tone, they often sound like they aren't trying in slow corners (especially on the more traditional road courses, oh that's a hot lap eh?) which is bit unfortunate!

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 14 August 2012 - 12:28.


#45 MadYarpen

MadYarpen
  • Member

  • 3,876 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 14 August 2012 - 12:32

well I watched GP3 race live in 2010, it sounded like a joke really...

#46 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,692 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 14 August 2012 - 12:37

The whole concept is based around "energy regeneration", "efficiency" and "fuel flow restrictions"...... well why not restrict the fuel flow on the the V8's and turn the bloody KERS up? It's not fricking rocket science.

And before any of the "It's 20 year old technology" brigade rock up....... apart from some clever injection systems and turbine technology - all engines are "old tech". The award wining 1.0 Ford EcoBoost has a cast iron block FFS.

The current V8's are amazingly efficient. Seriously....... look it up. Keep the V8's, restrict the fuel flow (just like the V6's)........ and open up the energy regeneration avenues through an FIA regulated RRA...... It saves the vast majority of all the bullshit and money. And at the end of the day - if the like's of VW wanted a piece of the pie..... then they'd already be here.


'efficient' in what sense? Volumetric efficiency? Thermal efficiency? They certainly have huge volumetric efficiency but their thermal efficiency is still no better than most other N/A engines. Turbocharged units are much better in this regard, especially modern ones with direct injection.

Oh and the material the block is made out of is rather irrelevant to how cutting-edge an engine is. We've had magnesium and aluminium blocks for decades.

#47 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 4,439 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 14 August 2012 - 13:01

'efficient' in what sense? Volumetric efficiency? Thermal efficiency? They certainly have huge volumetric efficiency but their thermal efficiency is still no better than most other N/A engines. Turbocharged units are much better in this regard, especially modern ones with direct injection.

Oh and the material the block is made out of is rather irrelevant to how cutting-edge an engine is. We've had magnesium and aluminium blocks for decades.


Fuel usage vs power output. They are incredibly frugal even without DI and variable timing. Far above any current "road" engine.

And you've just reinforced my point about the antiquated nature of piston engines when bringing up the material of the blocks. I mean - what the hell is F1 going to bring to the table other than spending otherworldly amounts of cash on stuff we already know is on the road?

It just doesn't make sense - in this current climate at least.

Now. Letting them loose on the KERS instead.........

Edited by maverick69, 14 August 2012 - 21:31.